would have suited them.

If for any special reason a letter should be essential, make it brief,
explicit, and formal; spend as much care over the letter as you have given
to the article which it is to cover. See that it contains no superfluous
words, and see that it is correctly spelt; some letters aren't.

When a series of articles is in contemplation or a novel departure to be
suggested, it sometimes happens that a rather elaborate explanation is
necessary. Do not send such an explanation in writing until you have
demonstrated the impossibility of seeing the editor in person.

Now editors do not like being seen, and certainly they do not like being
seen by the casual contributor. Despite the fact that this persevering
person is indispensable to them and often their best friend, they fall
into the habit of regarding the casual contributor as their natural enemy,
against whom warfare is to be waged. It is ridiculous, but it is true. So
be it. Accept the situation, and fight for yourself, taking your advantage
where you can, and casting away scruples of punctilio. By actually seeing
an editor you gain a double advantage. For in the first place it is much
more difficult for him to refuse _viva voce_ (especially to a woman
[Footnote: I by no means suggest that a woman should exploit her
femininity in order to gain points against a man.]) than by letter, and in
the second place a personal explanation of a scheme is likely to be much
more effective than a written one. Therefore resolve to see your editor
face to face.

That editors are invisible is taken for granted only by the inexperienced.
Without doubt editors love to surround themselves with an atmosphere of
mystery, aloofness, and sovereignty, but in truth they are human beings,